The International Agricultural Research Centers: Poised for change

Pergamon

Technology In Society, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 437451, 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain

The International Agab&umd Research Centers: Poised For Change Cynthia K. Wagner

ABSTRACT The International Agricultural Research Centers (LARCs) have developed a notable effort in the application of biotechnology to the l”hird World. Like other organizations that focus on developing countries, however, they are challenged with the need to create linkages with the commercial$rms that have come to dominate biotechnology RGD globally, while still preserving their mission. Tbe author presents data from a 1994 survey of the Centers indicating that, although their experience with R&D arrangements is limited, most expect the level of collaboration witbflrms to increase in the future. Tbe survey also demonstrates a level of biotechnology expertise in the Centers which, along with their germ plasm resources and knowledge of conventional crop and livestock improvement techniques, makes them attractive as potential RGD partners. Results of the survey, and an analysis of changes in technology policy occurring in the developing world, suggest that the success of the IARCs in forging alliances with firms requires that they reconsider their prevailing approach to intellectual property rights. l”his does not, however, imply that they need to compromise their objective to ameliorate conditions in the Third World.

Concern for the widening gap in biotechnology research and development between the industrialized and developing worlds has been voiced since the advent of the biotechnology revolution in the late 197Os.‘-* Although the

Cynthia K. Wagner is an assistant professor in the School of Business and Public Administration at the University of the Pact@ in Stockton, California. She specializes in strategicplanning for technology-based businesses and international market analysis and development. She has professional experience and academic training in both business administration and biology. Dr. Wagner received her Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and her bachelor’s and master’s from Ohio State University. Prior to joining the faculty of the University of the Paczjic, she was in new business development at Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Dr. Wagner gained additional exposure to international technology as a consultant to the United Nations Development Program and as a Research Scientist at Battelle Columbus Laboratories.

437

C. K. Wagner

438

need for the sorts of improved agricultural and health products made possible by biotechnology is acute in developing countries, the costly research behind these products tends to be concentrated in private companies in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. Marketdriven firms understandably emphasize proprietary R&D directed toward applications in the developed world. The strategic alliances that have come to characterize the development of biotechnology tend to be among organizations that share commercial objectives.5 Alliances involving developing country organizations, which generally have goals and modus operandi that are not consonant with those of private companies, are few and far between.6 The International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) are exemplary of the dilemma faced by R&D organizations in the developing world. The Centers - distributed throughout Africa, Asia, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East, and the U.S. - have traditionally devoted their R&D efforts to plant and animal agriculture relevant to developing world needs. Over the past 20 years they have gained an international reputation, while maintaining their independence from national and commercial concerns. Remaining technologically current, however, requires that they forge linkages with companies in the developed world. The problem is, can they do this and also fulfill their mission “to alleviate hunger and eliminate poverty in the Third World”? What forms of cooperation are most appropriate to ensuring the benefits of biotechnology accrue to developing countries? What policies in reaching this mission will require revision if the Centers aggressively pursue collaboration with firms in the developed world? The answers are relevant not only to the IARCs, but to all biotechnology efforts in the developing world as they face the changing context of global R&D. In order to address these questions, a mail survey of the IARCs was administered in summer, 1994. The survey requested information on: (1) the type and extent of biotechnology R&D being pursued within the Centers; (2) recently implemented cooperative biotechnology arrangements with commercial firms; and (3) respondents’ attitudes toward future cooperation with biotechnology firms. Questionnaires were sent to the Centers that perform research on plant or animal agriculture; all fourteen responded.’ The information gathered served as the basis for the following evaluation of the capabilities of the IARCs in biotechnology R&D, their degree of experience with and acceptance of cooperation with firms in the past, and their vision of the role of partnerships in the future. The implications of increased cooperation with the commercial realm to the IARCs’ mission and policies regarding germplasm availability and intellectual property are then discussed. Finally, recommendations are made regarding how the IARCs might best position themselves in the international R&D community in the future.

The International

Agricultural

Research Centers

The Consultative Group on International Agriculture (CGIAR), established in 1971, is the umbrella organization that oversees the IARCs, and is a consortium of countries, foundations, and development banks, cosponsored by

International

Agricultural

Research Centers

439

The World Bank, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). CGIAR initially coordinated the efforts of six Centers located in Colombia, Peru, the Philippines, Mexico, Nigeria, and West Africa. By 1980 ten more labs based in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the U.S. were added. Since then, two labs in Indonesia and Sri Lanka have joined the network and one pair, IPGRI and INIBAP, have been combined. CGIAR now comprises 1000 scientists working in 17 IARCs with the common purpose of serving plant and animal agriculture in the developing world via research, education, and extension. The individual Centers have traditionally operated relatively autonomously. Although CGIAR has recently made decision-making among them more tightly coordinated, each lab retains a distinct focus based on the crop or animal studied, and the geographic region and/or environment. The Centers are funded by about 40 public and private donors, which include national governments of developed and developing countries, various institutes and international agencies. Total core contributions in 1993 reached $235 million, with the U.S. and The World Bank as the major donors (contributing about $40 million each), followed by Canada ($16 million), Germany ($13 million) and the EC ($12 million).* The labs received an additional $77 million in complementary grants, bringing total funding to about $312 million. In real terms, funding of the Centers has decreased over the past few years, primarily due to lessened core contributions from major donors in the industrialized world, including the U.S. Although The World Bank stepped in to bolster support last year, CGIAR is concerned about maintaining current funding from traditional donors.’ Biotechnology

R&D in the IARCs

Eleven of the 14 labs surveyed reported having research efforts that use one or more of the various techniques comprising modern biotechnology: in vitro genetic manipulation via cell and tissue culture, monoclonal antibody formation, protoplast fusion, recombinant DNA (rDNA), and other techniques such as genetic mapping (Table 1). All but one of the labs initiated biotechnology R&D in the 1970s or 1980s. Table 2 shows the distribution of efforts among the labs on the basis of technique used and the organism to which the technique is applied. The labs exhibit a wide range of capabilities, which extend from the more basic techniques - cell and tissue culture - applied to the simplest microorganisms, all the way to the more sophisticated method, rDNA, applied to higher plants and animals. lo Most of the applications in the Centers regard plant species, and employ plant cell/tissue culture or rDNA. The heavy use of cell/tissue culture reflects the IARCs’ emphasis on preserving, propagating, and transferring germplasm resources. Other applications are in crop improvement and disease detection; microbe improvement; livestock improvement, disease detection, and treatment, embryo storage and exchange; and molecular mapping. Selected projects in biotechnology being undertaken in each of the Centers are listed in Table 3.

440

C. K. Wagner TABLE

1. Size of Biotechnology

Center (Year Biotechnology R&D Initiated)

B&B

FuII Time R&D Staff

Efforts

in the IABCS’

Approximate Biotechnology R&D Funding (In Millions)

CIAT (1978; Biotech Research Unit Established 1985)

>25

CIMMYT(1985)

5-10

$1.00

11-25

$0.40

ICARDA(1985)

5-10

$0.59

ICRISAT(1978)

5-10

IITA (1976 - Tissue Culture; 1990 Other Areas)

5-10

N/A $0.60

ILCAt (1985)

5-10

$0.13

ILJL‘W

(1975) IPGRWNIBAPS:

5-10

$5.00

IRRI (1979)

* >25

* $2.00

<5

$0.11

CIP (1974)

WARDA (1993) Total

$1.50 (excludes capital)

$11.33

*Data regards either N ‘93, N ‘93/‘94,or N ‘94, depending on respondent. tin 1993, the decision was made to join the efforts of ILCA and ILRAD under the single organization, ILRI. Individual responses to the survey were made independently, however, and therefore the centers are treated separately here. *In 1993, CGL4Rdecided that INIBAPwould no longer be an independent center, and would be placed under IPGRI; response to the survey reflected this and the centers are treated as one here. Responses provided no size of effort. IPGRI and INIBAP ‘lend support to projects that involved biotechnology.“’

The size of funding of the biotechnology efforts in the IARCs varies from under $1 million annually to over $5 million per year. Together, the 11 Centers devoted over $11.3 million to biotechnology R&D in 1994. This level of support is a fraction of CGLAR’s annual revenues from donors and other projects, as biotechnology is one among many research thrusts. A large proportion of funds goes towards more conventional crop and livestock improvement programs, which the more modern techniques augment. By developing country standards, the IARC biotechnology effort is impressive. However, the funding of biotechnology seems minor when compared with the amount spent by industry in the developed world. The top 40 or so major agrochemical firms, animal health care firms and biotechnology startups in the U.S. and Europe spent approx. $400 million on biotechnology R&D in 1990 alone.” With the exception of ILRAD, the individual Center efforts are at the small end of the scale when compared to R&D funding levels within U.S. companies (Table 4). However, taken together, at $11.3

International TABLE

2. Pattern

Agricultural

of Biotechnology

CeIVTissue Culture

Research Centers

441

RdkD in Respondent

Monoclonal Antibody Formation

Protoplast Fusion

Microorganism CIP ILCA ILRAD IIUU

Labs*

Recombinant DNA

CIP ICIUSAT ILRAD IRRI

Plant

CLAT CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IITA ILCA IPGRI/INIBAP II&RI

CIAT ICARDA ICIUSAT IITA IPGRI/INIBAP

Animal

ILRAD

ILRAD

ICRISAT IITA

CIAT CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IITA IRRI

ILRAD

‘CIAT, ICARDA, and IOTA also are using genetic mappingtechniques.

million per year in biotechnology R&D, they fall within the top half of U.S. firms in biotechnology. In terms of staff devoted to biotechnology efforts, two of the Centers were among U.S. efforts at the larger end of the scale.

i%e Pattern of Modes of Technology Transfer Used Cooperative arrangements related to biotechnology R&D between the Centers and commercial organizations have occurred infrequently (Table 5). Of the 11 labs with biotechnology R&D activity, seven have been involved in an R&D arrangement with a commercial firm in the U.S., Europe, or Japan over the past 2 years; however, among these less than 20 arrangements were forged. Moreover, most of the IARCs have limited their cooperation with industry to short-term arrangements with low or moderate interaction: educational or extension programs, personnel or equipment exchanges, and technology acquisition agreements. Other arrangements entail more of an advisory role, for instance, industry participation on the Center Boards. One research contract was implemented; and two Centers were involved in research parks, which generally represent a longer term arrangement with higher levels of interaction among partners. The pattern over the past 2 years is consistent with the Centers’ traditional approach to technology transfer, which has been accomplished mainly through training and extension efforts directed towards Third World scientists and farmers, and in making its germplasm and research findings freely available internationally. The Centers have not actively sought collaboration

442

C. K. Wagner

TABLE 3. Selected Biotechnology BdkB Projects in the IABCS Specific

Center

Projects

CIAT

Resistance to rice blast Resistance to African cassava mosaic virus Characterization of manihot and phaseola using DNA based markers

CIMMYT

Insect resistance, drought tolerance Rust resistance in wheat

CIP

Potato tuber moth resistance Resistance to late blight using genetic Detection of potato pathogens

in tropical maize

mapping

ICARDA

DNA-marker technology in plant breeding, estimation of biodiversity in crops, characterization of pests and diseases Wide crossing in durum wheat, chickpea and lentil

ICRISAT

Use of molecular markers to assist in breeding for complex traits Genetic transformation to overcome pests and diseases Development of diagnostics for plant diseases

IITA

Insect resistance in cowpea Virus free clonal materials through meristem culture and micropropogation of yams, cowpea, banana/plantain, and cassava

ILCA

Conservation of forages and in vitro dissemination germplasm Rapid clonal propagation of multipurpose trees In vitro fertilization for breeding improvement African trypanosomiasis breeding improvement

ILRAD

Vaccine Genetic Vaccine Embryo

IPGRVINIBAP

Rapid indexing of sweet potato viruses, using dot blot indexing method Determining recalcitrance in seeds of tea, cocoa, and jackfruit Improvement of musa yields

IRRI

Enhanced resistance to rice yellow stem borer, bacterial blight, blast, gall midge, tungro virus

WARDA

Improvement of upland, hydromorphic and lowland rice yields Improvement of resistance/tolerance to major stresses such as blast, drought and acidity

of

against tick borne disease resistance to trypanosomiasis against trypanosomiasis transfer

International

Agricultural

Research Centers

443

TABLE 4. Comparison of Size of Biotechnology RdkD Efforts in U.S. Company Labs (1991) with that of the IARCS U.S. Companies (% of all 44 Respondents to 1991 Survey)

IARC Survey (% of all 11 Respondents with Biotechnology Efforts)

Total Biotechnology R&D Funds, Annually (In Millions) 16 <$l $l-$4.9 38 $5-$24.9 29 11 >$25 No answer 6

46 27 9 0 18

Full Time Staff in Biotechnology R&D 25 No answer

64 9 18 9

20 13 67 0

*Source: (12).

with firms in industrialized countries. Their goal of aiding developing countries has deterred seeking out private funding or cooperation. Meanwhile, firms in industrialized countries have been dissuaded from collaborating with the Centers because of their opendoor policy with regard to germplasm and research findings, and the attendant policy against the use of patenting and other forms of intellectual property. However, the IARCs efforts have benefitted industrialized countries and companies over the years, directly or indirectly. Genetic resources collected by research centers in the developing world are increasingly being channeled to the developed world. l3 Italy alone gains an estimated $300 million per year from improving durum germplasm accessed from various national and international centers, particularly the IARCs: an impressive return from the $18 million per year the country donates to international agricultural research. Italy donates about $4 million per year to the Centers. Too, the Green Revolution, spurred by research on cereal grains within the IARCs, indirectly benefitted large agrochemicai firms due to the dramatically increased fertilizer requirements of the high-yielding varieties. ’ *

Attitudes

Toward Future Cooperation

With Commercial

Biotechnology

Response to the survey suggests strong recognition that gaining materials and know-how from the private sector via cooperative arrangements is critical to the IARCs’ success in applying biotechnology to developing world problems. The Centers that have aheady established arrangements with

C. K. Wagner

444

TABLE 5. Pattern of Cooperative Biotechnology Arrangements Between IARCS and Commercial Oqpnizations, 1992-1994 Cooperative

Arrangements

Centers with Activity None

Grants Educational

CIMMYT IPGRI

Programs

Extension

Service

Research

Contracts

IPGRI ICRISAT CIAT

Licensing Agreements

None

Personnel

CL4T

Exchanges

CIMMYT ILRAD

Equipment

Transfers/Loans

Industry Participation Center Boards

Center Participation Industry Boards

on

on

CLAT: One U.S. Company Employee at Center CIMMYT: One Center Employee at U.S. Company ILRAD: One Company Employee at Center; One Center Employee at Company Equipment Provided by One Swedish Company

CIAT CIMMYT IITA ILR4D

CIAT: One from U.S./Switzerland CIMMYT: Two From Two U.S. Companies IITA: Over Two - From Italy, the U.K., and Nigeria ILRAD: Two From Two U.S. Companies

None CIAT ILCA ILRAD

Joint Ventures

None

Commercial

None

Spinoffs

Contract for $15,00O/year with one U.S. Partner Firm

IRRI

Research Parks/Consortia that Involve Industry Participation

Others

Detail of Activity

CL4T CIP ILRAD IRRI

CL4T: One, in Japan ILCA/ILRAD: One in Kenya

CIAT: Info/Material Exchange with PGS (Belgium) and DuPont (U.S.) CIP: Collaborative Research with PGS and Axis Genetics (U.K.) IRRI: Material Acquisition From Japanese and Swiss Companies ILRAD: Technology Exchange with U.S. Company

International

Agricultural

Research Centers

445

industry expect that cooperation between the IARCs and commercial organizations will at least be maintained at the current pace; most say collaboration will increase in the future. Moreover, joint R&D is expected to occur not only between the Centers and companies in the industrialized world, but also with the growing number of private companies in the developing world. What specific projects might be addressed? Respondents mentioned gene cloning and modification of quality traits relevant to new industrial applications, for instance, cassava starch characteristics. Agreements with companies to acquire technology - gene constructs for example - and test products developed in commercial firms in the IARCs’ regions of interest are also expected to increase. Preferred arrangements for achieving cooperation include basic material transfer and licensing agreements. Others respondents envision more complex collaborative research efforts between the Centers and industry. The most far reaching design suggested was a research consortium, which would include a wide range of organizations, but be based on the IARCs. One respondent stressed that, regardless of the form of cooperation, the terms of agreement must be clearly specified and agreed upon. The survey indicated that the Centers are persistent in their efforts to obtain technology from industry. At least one Center has hit roadblocks in attempting to obtain genes from the private sector, yet is still actively contacting companies with genes of interest. It was also evident from the responses of at least two Centers that, as their capabilities in biotechnology R&D have grown, so have their perception of themselves not only as acquirers of technology from firms in developed countries, but as partners in R&D, with the ability to contribute as much expertise as they gain. Implications

of R&D Cooperation

to IARC Technology Policy

Results of the survey demonstrate that the IARCs have established scientific capability in biotechnology. Their R&D spans an impressive range of techniques applied to a wide variety of plant and animal species. Taken together, IARC biotechnology R&D is comparable in size to that of medium sized U.S. companies. Germplasm collection and conservation continues to be a major thrust of the IARCs, and understandably SO.‘~,‘”As many startup firms in the industrialized world have discovered the hard way, modern biotechnology has limited value in the absence of the genetic background and diversity that natural species and conventionally bred varieties and hybrids provide. These genetic resources, in combination with the IARCs’ prowess in biotechnology and conventional plant and animal improvement, make them attractive partners to firms interested in agriculture. The survey also indicates that the Centers in general recognize the necessity of forging cooperative agreements with firms in industrialized countries, although their experience with these arrangements to date has been limited. Some Centers are further along than others in their thinking in regard to options for joint R&D.

446

C. K. Wagner

The IARCs are struggling with changes implied by cooperation, in particular to policies regarding germplasm and intellectual property rights (IPR). The Centers’ approaches to collection and distribution of germplasm resources, which are now coordinated by IPGRI, have evolved over the past few years. The Centers traditionally have not been restricted in terms of either receipt or release of genetic material. The current policy, adopted in 1988, is that the Centers hold germplasm “in trust and that they have the duty to distribute germplasm . . . to any researcher with a legitimate interest.“” In 1992, CGIAR leadership agreed that the distribution of germplasm would remain unrestricted, but would require material transfer agreements. The Centers are not to pursue commercialization of the germplasm, but may work with national agencies that have an interest in doing so. Like its germplasm collection, IARCs’ research results also are normally treated as public goods accessible to anyone. With minor exceptions - IRRI has some patents on small machinery, and ILRAD filed for patents at the request of a private sector partner - the IARCS have maintained a policy against patenting or obtaining breeders’ rights.18 What will increased cooperation with companies from the industrialized world mean to these policies? Resolving these issues requires that the L4RCs look to broader changes in the developing world. Heavy investment in biotechnology in industrialized countries - meaning more commercial and proprietary research - is not the only cause of change.

Germplasm

and IPR: Shifting Attitudes

in the Developing

World

Countries have traditionally allowed collectors to remove genetic materials gratis, as germplasm was considered a global resource. However, over the past few years national policies in developing countries regarding the availability of germplasm have been evolving in a direction which calls into ques tion the assumption that they will continue to provide resources to collectors, including the IARCs, free of charge and without restrictions on further distribution. In 1991, a Food and Agriculture Organization policy recognized developing nations’ sovereignty over control of their germplasm and rights to compensation for these resources. Some developing countries have begun to require that collectors provide the national government with an inventory of material taken, and screening results. Resource-rich countries are beginning to require payment for collection rights or participation in the material’s development. In the early 1990s Merck reportedly agreed to pay the National Biodiversity Institute of Costa Rica $1 million for exclusive rights to screen its germplasm collection. The Institute also negotiated for royalties from any commercial application of the materials used.‘” Unimproved germplasm, however, is not protected under international law. “Exclusive rights typically require either the utilization of the wild genetic resources as an input to the development of an improved plant or the development of a patentable unique process for extraction or synthesis.

International

Agricultural

Research Centers

447

Rents to the wild genetic resources are captured with the returns to innovation that is embodied in the process or product.“20 Moreover, Sedjo notes that although legal precedent exists for compensating the source of a unique chemical produced in human tissue, this is unlikely to be extended to other unimproved genetic resources. “The distinction between invention and discovery makes it unlikely that naturally occurring genetic resources will be made property rights in the foreseeable future.“*l For genetic resources to be legally protected, they must be improved. Intellectual property rights - patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets - have historically been a bone of contention between industrialized and developing nations. ‘* Industrialized countries view IPR as an incentive to invention, which rewards the inventor’s investment of time and money. Returns from patents can support more R&D, and the disclosure of the invention required by patenting ensures that results are made public and avoids wasteful duplication of effort. Developing countries, on the other hand, have traditionally opposed IPR on the grounds that inventors and the companies who often employ them gain an unfair monopoly on the patented product and processes, which leads to prohibitive prices. Both pharmaceutical products and agricultural products, such as seed, are prime examples. Intellectual property rights were a major stumbling block to concluding the GATT negotiations. The Uruguay Round finally culminated in Fall, 1994 with the Third World’s acceptance, albeit with reservation, of the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Code), which requires signatory countries to protect all process and product inventions, including plant varieties. 23 In the area of biotechnology, the Code implies that, as in most industrialized countries now, plant and animal varieties improved using biotechnology, as well as gene constructs and techniques employed in genetic improvement, are eligible for legal coverage by patents, trade secrets and plant variety protection rights in developing countries. Signatory countries were given a grace period of 5 years to comply with the Code, with a possible 5 year extension; the least developed countries were given an extension of 10 years. GATT is not the only sign of changing policies towards intellectual property in the developing world. In fact, the propensity to patent has been emerging within developing countries over the past several years, particularly in the rapidly growing newly industrialized countries, which not too long ago were considered members of the Third World. Data on U.S. patents granted to foreign inventors over the past decade indicates that many developing countries are increasing the rate at which they are patenting inventions.** In 1993, Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, and Hong Kong were among the top 20 nations worldwide in number of U.S. patents granted to foreign inventors. If current growth rates in U.S. patenting continue, Taiwan and Korea may well be in the top half-dozen countries by the year 2000. It appears that as these and other countries develop their inventive capabilities they recognize the positive effect of invention on economic growth, and therefore the value of protecting intellectual property.

448

C. K. Wagner

Recommendation

Regarding

Technology Policy of the LARCs

In light of their desire to forge cooperative arrangements with industry, and given changes in policy within the developing world regarding germplasm and IPR, the IARCs must reconsider their conventional technology policies, particularly in regard to approaches to intellectual property.

Germplasm Cooperation with the commercial realm need not alter the CGIAR policy of unrestricted access to germplasm. Approaches emerging in developing nations suggest, however, that the Centers’ policies may not remain as clearcut in the future. Some developing countries may require payment from the Centers for their collections, and/or that the further dissemination of donated germplasm be restricted. At one extreme, the Centers could go to the route of these countries and charge for the use of germplasm. Although this would be a new source of funding, it might alienate the Centers’ constituencies, as well as traditional sources of funding. Such a policy would greatly complicate the IARCs’ relationships with suppliers and users and perhaps harm an asset of worldwide importance. It seems wise to maintain the current openness towards of germplasm and deal with exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Intellectual Property Rights If meaningful collaborative efforts between the Centers and companies are to be forged, the IARCs’ IPR policy will have to change. The IARCs must aggressively pursue R&D that will lead to product and processes that can be protected legally. The greatest value added in biotechnology R&D lies in improving germplasm, not only in collecting it. If the IARCs do not patent research findings, someone else will; and, given recent trends, that some one else may even be an organization in the developing world. In the absence of a policy for protecting patentable findings, firms will continue to shy away from cooperation. Moreover, without patents of their own, the IARCs lose bargaining power with potential industrial partners to whom technology is viewed as an asset, along with capital and access to marketsBy protecting research findings, the IARCs are not simply a source of genetic resources for use by others, and not only a conduit for technology developed by firms in industrialized countries, but a source of new technology themselves and thus a true partner in cooperative arrangements with firms. Altering their IPR policy need not be viewed as capitulating to the demands of the developed world, but as a reward for technological success that can be used to ensure that benefits are made available to developing countries. In appropriate cases, royalties on products that are eventually developed may provide the Centers with additional R&D funding.

International

Agricultural

Research Centers

449

Terms and Arrangements Developed country firms have in some instances allowed their protected research findings to be used royalty-free, so long as the application does not encroach upon developed world profits. Monsanto has allowed its virus coat protein to be used by Mexican scientists in the development of transgenic (genetically altered) potatoes. 25 AGC has an agreement with CIP which involves placing its gene for cowpea trypsin inhibitor into potato and sweet potato.*” AGC performs the molecular biology and CIP does the breeding and field trials. CIP has permission to distribute the resulting products in developing countries without restriction. The IARCs can use a similar strategy, offering their protected research findings to developing countries royalty-free. Joint development of patentable findings with companies complicates the situation, but not insurmountably. If a patented research finding is developed and owned jointly by a firm and the Center, the firm may require that it have exclusive rights in developed country markets, which will not impinge upon the IARCs efforts, and visa versa. In other cases, partners may share royalties on pro ducts based on jointly developed technology sold in the developed and, conceivably, in some more advanced developing countries. What arrangements will most likely allow the IARCs to achieve their goals and maintain their focus, and yet cooperate with private labs? They should expand the range they now use to include collaboration that is longer term and entails more interaction with companies. The arrangements currently used do not represent the sort of cooperation that most biotechnology firms consider routine, which involve sharing of expertise. Neither do these provide funding or various other benefits of cooperation. Contact with firms, for instance, will provide IARC researchers with a more market-based outlook, at least indirectly, the absence of which has been identified as a major shortcoming of R&D in the developing world.*’ The IARCs’ experience cooperating with industry is limited. They must gain talent in managing R&D arrangements with firms. Several services directed towards developed/developing world cooperation in biotechnology have emerged over the past few years, which may be of use in identifying and managing relationships with industry. Of particular note is Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity (ABSP), a 6 year $6 million effort launched by USAID, which links public and private U.S. institutions with partners in developing nations.28 ABSP also provides consultation on intellectual property protection and has can coordinate arrangements with institutions, including the IARCs. The Integrity of the IARCS’ Mission The IARCs are at a critical juncture, aware that they have to reach out to the commercial biotechnology realm, but wanting to make the transition without compromising the integrity of their mission towards improving conditions in the Third World. Must their mission change? No. The IARCs focus

C. K. Wagner

450

is sound and necessary. However, maintaining their pivotal role in facing this challenge requires change in the manner they fulfilltheir mission. Their prevailing technology policy must be revised to meet the needs of cooperation with companies and to adapt to changes in the developing world, as countries revise their thinking vis-&vis germplasm and intellectual property rights, and as economic development causes the lines between North and South to be redrawn. The Centers must also recast the perception of their own role in the international R&D community. As they pursue research applicable to the developing world, they must also be seen as a partner in leading edge science of global relevance and scope. If not, they run the risk of watching their unique technological assets deteriorate irreversibly. This would be a striking blow to the realization of biotechnology’s promise to agriculture the world over. Acknowledgments The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the Directors and other representatives the IARCs for the time and thought given to responding to the survey.

of

Notes 1. A. K. Ventura, “Biotechnologies

and Their Implications

for Third World Development,”

Technology

in Sodety, Vol. 4, no. 2 (1982) pp. 106-29. 2. M. Kenney and F. Buttle, “Biotechnology: Prospects and Dilemmas for Third World Development,” Development and Change, Vol. 16 (1985). pp. 61-91. 3. R. E. Evenson, J. Putnam and C. Pray, “The Potential for Transfer of U.S. Agricultural Technology” (New Haven: Department of Economics, Economic Growth Center, Yale University, 1985) p. 58. 4. K. W. Platais and M. P. Collinson, “Biotechnology and the Developing World.” Finance and Development (March 1992) pp. 34-37. Vol. 10 (1992). pp. 529-531. 5. C. K. Wagner, “International R&D Is the Rule,” Sio/Technology, 6. For examples of alliances between firms in the developed world, and developing world organizations, see Genetic Engineering News, Vol. 12 (1992) p. 14; Agbiotechnology News, Vol. 9(l) (1992) p. 17; Genetic Engineering News Vol. 14(14) (1994) p.4. 7. Questionnaires were not sent to IFPRI, ISNAR, or IIMI, as these Centers focus on policy research or, in the case of IIMI, irrigation research. The Centers to which surveys were sent included: CLAT, CIFOR, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICLARM, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IITA, ILCA, ILRAD, lNlBAP/IPGRI, IIRI, and WARDA. The questionnaire was addressed to the Directors of the Centers, and was completed by the Director or other appropriate person. 8. CGIAR, “CGL4R Annual Report 1993-1994,” (Washington, DC: CGL4R Secretariat, The World Bank, 1994X p. 49. 9. A. S. Tyson, “Budget Cuts Jeopardize 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

Discovery

of Better Seeds,” Christian Science Monitor (June

29, 1994) p. 8. It is interesting to note that the biotechnology R&D in the L4CRs has advanced considerably when compared with a 1985 assessment of Center biotechnology efforts: see C. K. Wagner, “Agricultural Biotechnology: State of the Art Within the IARCs,” Report to the DGlP/UNDP (New York, 1986). J. Hodgson, “Biotechnology: Feeding the World,” Blo/TechnoZogy, Vol. 10 (1992) p. 49. Data is from a survey of U.S. biotechnology firms, administered by C. K. Wagner (Stockton, CA: University of the Pacific, June 1991). D. Bagnara, “Developing Countries Contribute Germplasm to Italian PLant Breeding Programs through the CGL4R Centers,” Diversity, Vol. 8, no. 1 (1992) pp. 16-18. For discussion of the technolgical and socioeconomic aspects of the Green Revolution see, V.W. Ruttan, “The Green Revolution: Seven Generalizations,” International Development Review, Vol.

International

15.

16. 17.

18. 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Agricultural

Research Centers

451

19, no. 4 (1977); and H. M. Cleaver Jr, “The Contradictions of the Green Revolution,” Monthly Revtew (June 1972). D. H. van Sloten, “IBPGR and the Challenges of the 1990s: A Personal Point of View,” Diversity, Vol. 6, no. 2 (1990). pp. 36-39. P. Salm, “Germ Plasm Value and Values,” Bio Venture View (July 1992), pp. 24-25. W. E. Sieback, “Intellectual Property Rights and CGIAR Research - Predicament or Challenge?” in “CGIAR Annual Report 1993-1994,” (Washington, DC: CGIAR Secretariat, The World Bank, 1994) p. 18. Siebeck, op. cit., p.17. R. A. Sedjo, “Property Rights, Genetic Resources, and Biotechnological Change,” Journal of Law and Economics (April 1992) p. 210. Ibid., p. 206. Ibid., p. 208. Sieback, op. cit., p. 21. P. Steidlmeier, “The Moral Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Claims: American Business and Developing Country Perspectives,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 (1993) pp. 157-164. Raw data obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office (December 1994). A. F. Krattinger and C. James, ‘International Organization Established to Transfer Proprietary Technology to Developing Countries: ISAAA,” Diversity, Vol. 9, no. 4 (1993) p. 38. Hodgson, op. cit., p. 47. Hodgson, op. cit., p. 47. Anonymous, “Global Pamership Promotes Sustainable Agriculture,” Diversity, Vol. 8, no. 1 (1992) pp. 9-10.